Google may take aim at Web video standards with On2 purchase

Google has signed a deal to acquire video compression heavyweight On2 …

Google and On2 Technologies have announced today that they have signed a deal for Google to acquire On2 in an all-stock deal valued at $106.5 million. On the surface, it's a match made in heaven. On2 is one of the leading providers of video codec software and hardware, and Google is one of the leading providers of Web-based video. The deal also has the potential to move the future of Web video codecs in the direction of open standards.

Video codecs are a big deal. They fuel the technology behind Video CDs (MPEG-1), DVDs (MPEG-2), and Blu-ray (MPEG-4), and are linked with the history of the Web, as various codecs and formats—QuickTime, Windows Media Video, Theora, H.264, DiVX, Flash, Silverlight, etc.—all compete to deliver video over networks. On2 supplies the codec (VP6) used in Flash video, the current reigning delivery system for online video.

A battle has been raging over a standards-based replacement for the proprietary Flash video, fueled by the upcoming HTML5 standard, which includes a <video> element intended to provide a simple, standard way to embed video into a webpage, much like the <img> tag did for still images. The developers of the HTML5 standard hoped to settle on a single standard codec that would serve as a baseline that all browsers would support. Some, like Apple and Google, wanted that codec to be H.264—a highly efficient codec used widely by Apple and Google for video. Some, like Mozilla and Opera, wanted to use the Ogg Theora codec—which is unencumbered by patents and is open source. (Theora is based on an old On2 codec called VP3, which the company released to the public domain.)

Google's deal to buy On2 clearly fits with Google's interest to standardize Web video. "Today video is an essential part of the web experience, and we believe high-quality video compression technology should be a part of the web platform," said Sundar Pichai, Google Vice President of Product Management, in a statement. "We are committed to innovation in video quality on the web, and we believe that On2's team and technology will help us further that goal."

It's not clear yet exactly how Google intends to do that. Obviously the technology that On2 would bring to the table could be used on YouTube. But it's not hard to imagine Google may also take On2's latest VP8 codec and release it as open source in a bid to create a standard Web codec. On2 says that its VP8 codec "brings bandwidth savings far beyond any other format available," and uses "significantly less data than required by leading H.264 implementations." On2 claims that VP8 can result in an average savings of 40 percent, but those claims of superiority over H.264 aren't universally supported.

If anyone has a chance of pushing a standard for Web video to be universally accepted, though, Google—armed with On2's extensive codec technology—is definitely in a great position to do so. Should VP8 be open sourced, it would likely quickly gain the support of Mozilla and Opera, tilting the Web video balance towards open standards.

I don't really care, I just want everyone to just use an opensource codec, that's the only reason why I support the OGG on being the de facto standard for HTML5. If Google does opensource and give up all patents on the technology to Xiph (makers of OGG), then I'll be happy too!

I just don't see H.264 as a good choice for being the web de facto standard due to the fact that there's licensing and it's not opened for anyone to use.

I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

Originally posted by flat otter:I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

"On2 is one of the leading providers of video codec software and hardware"

Originally posted by flat otter:I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

Originally posted by flat otter:I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

cant that kind of stuff be handled with a DSP?

It probably can, but DSPs are more expensive than a fixed function chip, making it too costly to include in small handheld devices.

Honestly I don't get this acquisition. I don't see Google trying to push VP8. Google already has wide support for H.264, H.264 already has too much support and momentum.

You need to re-check your facts. The vast majority of online content is delivered via flash since Windows media player and Quicktime plugins suck so much ass.

H.264 is only a relatively recent addition, the majority of stuff on places like Youtube are VP6 encoded.

The amount of licensing fees and other things that Google is looking to pay for things like Youtube for the next few years is probably is not significantly less then the cost of simply buying 0n2 for 105 million.

Originally posted by Teno:Honestly I don't get this acquisition. I don't see Google trying to push VP8. Google already has wide support for H.264, H.264 already has too much support and momentum.

Google really, really wants HTML5 to take off and <video/> to work.

Opera (quite involved in HTML5 though their marketshare is… low) won't ship with h.264, Firefox and other OSS browsers (e.g. Chromium) can't. On the other hand Apple will not go with Theora due to patent fears.

The reason Flash is so ubiquitous has nothing to do with the quality of Windows Media or Quicktime. Quicktime runs perfectly fine on the iPhone, while Flash has been shown to run terribly on phones.

No, Youtube now uses H.264. Google intends to drop Flash altogether. In the near future they will switch Youtube from Flash to HTML video tags. Because of its wide support for hardware acceleration, most of the larger video delivery sites are switching to H.264.

Its true the smaller websites that may not be able to afford H.264 licensing fees are using VP6.

For a company like Google licensing fees are no big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by drag:You need to re-check your facts. The vast majority of online content is delivered via flash since Windows media player and Quicktime plugins suck so much ass.

H.264 is only a relatively recent addition, the majority of stuff on places like Youtube are VP6 encoded.

The amount of licensing fees and other things that Google is looking to pay for things like Youtube for the next few years is probably is not significantly less then the cost of simply buying 0n2 for 105 million.

Originally posted by hobgoblin:iirc, hd-dvd used mpeg-4, but blu-ray uses mpeg-2...

If memory serves me right at all, I believe HD-DVD was really big on VC-1, whereas blu-ray used the MPEG-4 pretty often, esp with the dual layered disc's.

Google must seem like a nightmare for some of the bigger companies (Microsoft, Apple ect), not because of what they're doing, but because of what some of these acquisitions might allow them to do. It almost seems like google's prepared to own the internet :P

Originally posted by flat otter:I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

cant that kind of stuff be handled with a DSP?

It probably can, but DSPs are more expensive than a fixed function chip, making it too costly to include in small handheld devices.

ok, but TI have been including DSP on their omap series for a while now, right?

Actually Chrome will support both Theora and H.264. Opera and Firefox won't support it because they can't/won't pay the licensing fees.

HTML video tags can still work without a defined codec. Simply, if a browser doesn't automatically support the codec then a media frame work such as Windows Media or Quicktime can be pulled up to play the video.

quote:

Originally posted by masklinn:Google really, really wants HTML5 to take off and <video/> to work.

Opera (quite involved in HTML5 though their marketshare is… low) won't ship with h.264, Firefox and other OSS browsers (e.g. Chromium) can't. On the other hand Apple will not go with Theora due to patent fears.

Originally posted by Teno:The reason Flash is so ubiquitous has nothing to do with the quality of Windows Media or Quicktime. Quicktime runs perfectly fine on the iPhone, while Flash has been shown to run terribly on phones.

Where the hell does the iPhone come into it? Who gives a shit about the iPhone? It's not even really that popular in terms of phones. Maybe 'smartphones', but smartphones are a tiny market compared to feature phones. Most phones just stream 3gpp over RTSP rather then play flash.

quote:

No, Youtube now uses H.264. Google intends to drop Flash altogether. In the near future they will switch Youtube from Flash to HTML video tags. Because of its wide support for hardware acceleration, most of the larger video delivery sites are switching to H.264.

So... That still does not mean that much. The majority of videos are still VP6 and I expect that Google can easily switch back to a On2 codec any time they feel like. It's not like it requires any sort of software installation on the client side.. it just needs to be supported by Adobe flash.

quote:

Its true the smaller websites that may not be able to afford H.264 licensing fees are using VP6.

For a company like Google licensing fees are no big deal.

You can keep telling yourself that and keep thinking that Apple cares about quality of codecs rather then locking customers into their products and excluding open source and inexpensive competitors....

But it's clearly _not_the_case_ that the 'licensing is no big deal'. Your obviously wrong because Google is actually buying 0n2. Its at least a 105 million dollar 'big deal'.

Originally posted by flat otter:I think the biggest barrier to adoption of Ogg or VP8 is the lack of hardware acceleration, making playback possible on mobile devices. I wonder if we'll be seeing Google partner with a chipmaker to build accelerator chips for whatever video format they have in mind.

This is also a reason why Ogg Theora isn't universally supported as the standard video format for HTML5.

Originally posted by drag:Where the hell does the iPhone come into it? Who gives a shit about the iPhone? It's not even really that popular in terms of phones. Maybe 'smartphones', but smartphones are a tiny market compared to feature phones. Most phones just stream 3gpp over RTSP rather then play flash.

You said QT and WM were crap. I was simply pointing out that QT works fine on a phone while Flash does not.

3GPP is just a stop gap technology. Desktop class media frameworks are better and are just now being ported to phones.

quote:

So... That still does not mean that much. The majority of videos are still VP6 and I expect that Google can easily switch back to a On2 codec any time they feel like. It's not like it requires any sort of software installation on the client side.. it just needs to be supported by Adobe flash.

Seeing as Youtube is the largest web video service in the world, it means a lot. The client side has to be able to decode the video codec that is being streamed. Google cannot use a codec that few computers are able to decode.

quote:

You can keep telling yourself that and keep thinking that Apple cares about quality of codecs rather then locking customers into their products and excluding open source and inexpensive competitors....

Apple does not own or directly control MPEG 4. Its been shown by multiple sources that H.264 if not the best, is one of the superior video codecs.

quote:

But it's clearly _not_the_case_ that the 'licensing is no big deal'. Your obviously wrong because Google is actually buying 0n2. Its at least a 105 million dollar 'big deal'.

Google has not said that they are buying On2 for VP8. That is just your assumption.

HTML video tags can still work without a defined codec. Simply, if a browser doesn't automatically support the codec then a media frame work such as Windows Media or Quicktime can be pulled up to play the video.

That doesn't solve the H.264 problem because the person hosting the video still needs to pay fees.

Just fyi On2's VP6 codec is widely used in flash videos around the web. In fact, it's installed as the default codec for Adobe's bundled Video Encoder that comes with Flash. Made countless movies with this little codec.

Originally posted by dlux:I would have rather seen Google spend that $106M buying off MPEG-LA so that playback of H.264 can be done by anyone without licensing fees.

Not the greatest deal but it would move us all forward with a proven codec that everyone could standardize on.

Something tells me that $106M wouldn't be nearly enough to bribe the MPEG-LA to offer H.264 with some kind of 'free-license'. Perhaps $106B would??? :-)

Not to mention the ball would still be in MPEG-LA's court when a new version of the codec comes out that stomps H.264 in efficiency and quality. Now that Google has its own shop, it can stay in the game competitively and create its own rules at the same time.

Plus like you said, I can't imagine them licensing out their codec to the entire web for a paltry $100M. This is the same organization whose codec is used to distribute Hollywood's catalog on Blu-ray.

Originally posted by Chronotriggerjm:If memory serves me right at all, I believe HD-DVD was really big on VC-1, whereas blu-ray used the MPEG-4 pretty often, esp with the dual layered disc's.

Suporting both was mandatory for both HD disc formats. Probably supporting MPEG2 is, too, as some of SONY's first BD titles were encoded in MPEG2.

All of MPEG-2, VC-1, and H.264 were mandatory for all three.

In practice probably 90% of HD DVD was VC-1 and the rest H.264. Blu-ray was originally MPEG-2 only, and since has been a mix of H.264 and VC-1, with MPEG-2 dropping off. I think all the Warner titles are still VC-1.

VC-1 and H.264 are essentially identical in terms of licensing and compression efficiency at Blu-ray bitrates, so it was more about the available implementation and support in tools.

Originally posted by Teno:We don't know if that's Google's plan I doubt it. Theora is the alternative.

Flash got lucky and gaines dominance because back when IE owned 90% of the browser market they included Flash by default.

I don't know why you would doubt it. Google has clearly stated they prefer the licensing of Theora but cannot live with the bandwidth costs. This lets them have the licensing of theora with the bandwidth costs of H.264.

If I were to guess I'd say their plan is to open the codec, propose it to the W3c and encourage Mozilla to adopt it, then encourage adobe to support it so they can have a fallback in non-compliant browsers. In a very short time they can have far reaching support if this happens.

Also, Flash video took off because flash had almost 100% market penetration. If the 90% that IE gave it was enough for people they never would have bothered with flash because that same 90% could support embeded wmv's.